Kevin l Habershaw

5th Dec 2023

General questions

For a period of time starting in the mid-2000s, it became common for most major DVD releases to have both 1- and 2-disc editions. Typically, the 2-disc edition just had more bonus content and cost a few dollars more, while the 1-disc edition had less content and was cheaper. I never understood this. This was before streaming became huge, so it didn't incentivize buying the DVD, nor did the 2-disc edition cost much more, so it couldn't have had much impact on profit. So why was this even a thing?

TedStixon

Answer: OP here. From everything I've been able to find, it pretty much just looks like it was just a bit of a gimmick. Put some extra bonus content on a second disc, call it a "Special Edition" or "Collector's Edition" or "Limited Edition," and charge an extra $5 for it. People who wanted just the movie could buy the single disc for the standard price, and people who wanted more special features paid a slightly more expensive "premium price." And it would subtly boost profits.

TedStixon

I think you're right - the extra content largely existed already, there was no significant cost to produce it, and mastering a second version of the DVD wouldn't cost much in the grand scheme of things either, so any extra amount would have been pure profit. Showgirls (first example I found) apparently made $37m in cinemas and $100m in DVD sales. A couple of extra dollars per unit would add up. It might also serve as "anchoring" if that's the right term - having a more expensive 2 disc version makes the single disc version look like better value to the casual buyer (while also appealing more to the movie buff). There are certainly some films I splashed out on for the fancier version because I was a fan (and then of course never really watched the extras much!), but going back a while there was literally no other way to see this extra content unless you bought the special edition.

Jon Sandys

From the perspective of why they were simultaneously released (and with a relatively small difference in price), I'd agree. But this is different from why two-disc versions were released some time after the one-disc version (and with a substantial difference in price). That is, the reasons why this initially happened are different from why it continued to happen.

KeyZOid

I was trying to refer to concurrent releases in my question. Unfortunately, the character limit meant I could not give any examples. I was referring to titles like "Spider-Man 3" or "Transformers." I used to go to the store at midnight to buy new DVD releases around the time those movies came out, and there would almost always be a single disc DVD with just the movie and a few features, and a 2-Disc set with more special features released on the same day. (A 2-disc special/anniversary edition being released a few years later for an older title makes sense, and is a different matter entirely. I'm referring to when multiple editions of the same new release were put out at the same time.)

TedStixon

Yes, I finally figured this out! You are asking about a specific time period and looking for a straightforward answer, without putting things in historical perspective (the developing technology and decreasing costs of mass-producing DVD movies). The extras (plus a little more) that used to be included on the standard editions were now on a second disc with the package costing about $5 more. It probably came down to "will customers [be stupid enough to] pay extra money for this two-disc DVD?"

KeyZOid

It probably came down to 'will customers [be stupid enough to] pay extra money for this two-disc DVD?' "and unfortunately when I was a teenager, I was, hahahaha. But yeah, the more I look into it, the more it does just seem like a total gimmick. (I feel like a good modern comparison might be steelbooks... cool packaging, but usually sold for a very high markup even though it's the same exact discs.)

TedStixon

My "victimization" came much earlier. I had the standard release versions of movies and, later, when I started to see much more expensive two-disc versions, I thought, "Who would buy these now?" Well, I think I ended up buying 3 versions of "Terminator 2." [Why?]

KeyZOid

Answer: From my experience, the 2-disc versions provided two different formats. Typically, the 1-disc version was Fullscreen and, depending on its release, did have additional content like commentaries and deleted scenes. The 2-disc version included a Widescreen version as well as extra materials, extended cuts, remastered versions, or special edition, etc. Later, when Blu-Ray came out, the 2-disc set usually included a standard DVD version. Some DVDs were sold as 2-sided without a lot of extra content but having a Fullscreen and Widescreen version.

Bishop73

This doesn't really answer the question. I'm not referring to those. I'm more so referring to titles like "Spider-Man 3" or "Super 8". Their DVDs only came in widescreen, but had two versions. A single-disc edition with just the movie and a few special features, and a 2-disc edition that had more special features. I'm curious as to WHY many titles had single and two-disc editions with the only difference being the amount of special features. It just seems more logical to release just the 2-disc edition. This answer basically just explains that 2-disc existed.

TedStixon

I apologise for misunderstanding the question, because what you described in my experience was atypical. And in my opinion, it makes sense to release two versions, but I'm afraid to answer why if I turn out to still not understand the question.

Bishop73

No problem. It's a very weird, specific question, hahaha. Wouldn't surprise me if there isn't even really an answer beyond just "they decided to try it for some reason."

TedStixon

Answer: Simply put MONEY.

Kevin l Habershaw

Profits are almost always, if not always, a factor. The two-disc versions with "extras" might have been enough to get certain movie buffs to buy them, even though they already had the single-disc version - but I doubt very many people actually did so.

KeyZOid

9th Jul 2021

General questions

I am trying to find the name of a cartoon movie that I watched a scene from when I was about four years old. I remember going over to the neighbors house with my mom and the kids were downstairs watching a movie. I only remember one scene out of the whole movie. I remember that a bad guy had snakes on his shoulders, and he turns one of them into either a sword or a dagger, and he goes to stab someone but another man gets in front of him and gets stabbed himself. What movie is this scene from?

Answer: G.I. JOE the Movie.

Kevin l Habershaw

17th Apr 2021

Monk (2002)

Show generally

Question: How exactly does Monk afford to pay Natalie? Would he still get a pension after being discharged for psychiatric reasons? Is it ever mentioned (in-universe or otherwise) if he's independently wealthy or something? On several occasions Natalie tried to get the department to pay Monk more and tells Monk he can't afford things at times or his check will bounce, like he's broke.

Bishop73

Answer: Like a certain Poirot, he is paid by the case and thus has a lot of cases = lots of income.

Answer: He gets paid by the city on a case by case basis, and she gets paid out of that.

Kevin l Habershaw

Answer: Natalie is not officially employed by Monk, like an independent contractor she gets paid under the table.

That doesn't explain how Monk can afford to pay her.

Bishop73

Answer: He would have received a disability check, suffering from a mental illness qualifies you, the same as a physical injury, but would be limited to his therapy and living expenses.

Except he would be limited in what he could earn to receive payments and that wouldn't be enough to pay a full time employee.

Bishop73

Question: Is the young green alien who is cheering on Anakin at the pod races the same one who confronts Han Solo in Episode 4?

Answer: Technically it wasn't, but during principal photography of the movie, it indeed was meant to be the same creature (Greedo). In one of the deleted scenes, the green alien picks a fight with Anakin, accusing him of cheating to win the pod race. Qui-gon warns young Greedo that he'll get into trouble if he keeps picking fights, and sure enough, he is blasted to pieces by Han Solo in Episode IV (again, that was the original plan). However, since the scene never made it into the movie, we are just left to assume it's an alien of the same race.

Matty Blast

Answer: No his name is Wald, and he is of the same race. The deleted scene shows them together, but the Wald says be careful or one day you'll get yours.

Kevin l Habershaw

30th Mar 2021

Monk (2002)

Mr. Monk Goes to Jail - S2-E16

Question: I think this is a mistake, but I'm asking as a question because I don't know enough about the TV in question. In the prison library, the inmates are looking for the remote, which the librarian had hidden. But the TV looks like one where the channels can only be changed by turning the dial. It appears to be a TV with VHF and UHF dials. Can a remote be used with that type of TV?

Bishop73

Answer: Normally no but it could have a cable box that we can't see.

Kevin l Habershaw

Question: Just before Doc shows his plan with the DeLorean and the train Marty checks the walkie-talkies and Doc confirms it that they work. How are they able to get the walkie-talkies to work in 1885? I'm thinking Doc invented something so Doc and Marty can communicate with each other with them.

Answer: Doc from 1955 told Marty "just in case, fresh batteries for your Walkie-Talkies."

Kevin l Habershaw

Answer: Given Doc's scientific ability (and some suspension of disbelief) it would be easy enough to rig up a makeshift battery that would last long enough. Or indeed they've just got lucky and the walkie-talkies' batteries still have enough life in them. They're not mobile phones, they don't need masts or any infrastructure, they just connect directly to each other.

Jon Sandys

Like you said, walkie-talkies work independently of any infrastructure, which is what I think the question was more about. However, the battery was invented way before 1885 with the first lead acid rechargeable battery being invented in 1859 with pasted electrode batteries being invented in the 1880's. So it's less about Doc rigging up a battery and just using what's already available or charging the batteries it came with (if we are assuming the batteries ran out of power).

Bishop73

The best batteries they had in those days were crude, wet batteries made out of earthenware and filled with sulphuric acid. They were cumbersome, dangerous and didn't have a lot of voltage or low current. Hardly suitable for a walkie-talkie that needs at least 9 volts. But I suppose it's possible Doc had some charged self-made batteries sitting at home to keep them going.

lionhead

Definitely not "crude", certainly not as advanced as today, but the lead acid battery is the same technology a lot of batteries use today. They even had electric vehicles prior to 1885. My point was Doc didn't have to invent technology that didn't exist (as opposed to what some say he would have to do to get an 80's camcorder to play on a 50's TV). They had rechargeable batteries back then so it wouldn't be a stretch that Doc could recharge the batteries he had.

Bishop73

Answer: 1955 Doc got him some new batteries ("Just in case, fresh batteries for your walkie talkie. Oh what about that floating device?") They only used them on the train so the batteries would still be charged. In regards to how they work, they don't rely on phone masts, satellites, WiFi etc as they send radio waves to each other and not to any sort of base station.

Join the mailing list

Separate from membership, this is to get updates about mistakes in recent releases. Addresses are not passed on to any third party, and are used solely for direct communication from this site. You can unsubscribe at any time.

Check out the mistake & trivia books, on Kindle and in paperback.